Evolution by Chance?
by Michael Langston
I must state at the outset that I am not an evolutionary biologist and that the argument I am about to present is not fully developed scientifically (although I believe that it could be if one were to spend sufficient time researching it). It is presented here only in common-sense, layman's terms. I am admittedly no expert on the subject I am about to discuss, but it doesn't require an expert to see that there is something seriously wrong with the evolutionists' theories on the origin of species.
I am frequently astounded by the arrogance of the scientific community and by their unfounded notion that they now are somehow immune to the error and dogmatism that plagued such established belief systems in the past. It is my belief that science today can be just as dogmatic, just as arrogant, and just as erroneous as it was when the earth was considered to be at the center of the universe and when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and not vice versa.
Nowhere is this dogmatism more apparent than in the area of evolutionary biology. How arrogant are the proponents of this theory of evolution, who confidently assert that they understand the mysteries of how species came into being, when they understand nothing of the sort! I don't believe there is a human being alive who has the answers to these profound questions: Exactly how did life originate? How did life forms as diverse from one another as the birds in the trees and the trees themselves come into being? Evolution as an explanation for the origin of the various plant and animal species is just as much a religion based on faith as any other religion. It is a form of secular religion that places its faith in the authority and presumed infallibility of the scientific establishment.
Let's look at a specific example of something they are not able to adequately explain: how flight in birds came into being. Let's ask ourselves the following question: Is random chance alone enough to account for this occurrence?
The first thing that we must understand is that one single "variation" or "mutation" is not sufficient to produce a bird that can fly. Anyone who has ever done any computer programming can attest to the fact that a viable program is the result of many, many lines of computer code all working together to form a harmonious whole.
Living systems are no different. Flight in birds is a complex aggregate of many hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of discrete genetic elements all working together like the lines of code in a computer program or the tiny gears of an intricate watch mechanism. If one single line of that code or one tiny gear of that watch is missing, the program will crash, the watch will not keep time, and the bird will be hopping around aimlessly over the ground unable to fly.
And this is an extremely critical point to grasp: An intermediate form - for example, a bird with the correct morphology but without any feathers - would have no selective advantage in the natural selection process. The bird could not fly, and thus would probably be eaten by a predator as it hops helplessly on the ground. Thus, the intermediate form's genetic traits very likely would not be transmitted to succeeding generations and would simply die out before they had a chance to be "evolved" in a gradual evolutionary process.
In effect, these partially evolved traits would be entirely worthless. All the disparate genetic elements involved in producing an advantageous trait (such as the ability of a bird to fly) would have to come together simultaneously to produce a viable organism for natural selection to select: one that would survive in the struggle for existence and that would then pass on this advantageous trait to succeeding generations.
In mathematics, the probability of multiple independent events all occurring simultaneously is equal to the product of the respective probabilities of those individual events:
P = (P1)(P2)(P3)...(Pn)
For example, the probability of two coins both coming up "heads" is:
(1/4) = (1/2)(1/2)
As more coins are tossed and more factors are introduced into the equation, the probability of them all coming up "heads" becomes less and less and very quickly becomes exceedingly small, even with a small number of coins. It is not difficult to see that with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of factors - each one much smaller - that the product would be an inconceivably small number. This number represents the probability of the simultaneous occurrence of all these separate events, the simultaneous appearance of all the necessary genetic elements...the probability of flight in birds arising from the process of random chance alone.
I do not know what these numbers actually are in specific, quantitative terms, but it is not necessary to know this. It is quite obvious that the probability of a bird with the capability of flight arising from this random chance process is so small that it would likely take trillions of years, not millions, for such an event to occur. So it is absurd to believe that the evolutionary process, if it exists at all, is driven simply by random chance alone.
In conclusion, let me state that I am not a creationist, and I do not presume to know exactly how life originated or how various species came into being. The means of creation of all the diverse life forms on this planet is a subject too complex for my limited human intellect to fathom. Even something as comparatively simple as a computer program is so complex that the human mind cannot comprehend all its intricacies all at one time. I do not understand these mysteries of life, but neither do the evolutionists. Don't let them kid you. They haven't a clue.
As more scientists come around to the creation side, more and more facts are coming out that destroy the myth of Evolution. Did you know man and Dinosaur walked the earth at the same time? What was the canopy made out of that protected the earth before the deluge??
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest